Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (2) TMI 482 - AT - Central ExciseDuty Demand - Recovered development charge considered as manufacturing cost? - exemption to the pattern jigs/fixtures manufactured and used within the factory of production irrespective of the ownership of the goods - penalty - HELD THAT - We find that the jigs/patterns/fixtures manufactured by the appellant and used in the factory of production were exempt from payment of duty irrespective of the ownership of these goods under Notification No. 46/94, dated 1-3-94, 56/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 and 67/95, dated 16-3-95 as these were used within the factory of production. Shri Narasimha Murthy fairly conceded that duty demanded on jigs, patterns, fixtures and toolings is not sustainable. We find that in this case developmental charges were recovered by the appellants separately. These developmental charges would have gone into the cost of the patterns manufactured and the duty could have been demanded only on the excisable goods, which were manufactured from these patterns developed by the appellants for manufacture of the casting. The number of casting which could have been manufactured from the patterns developed for which developmental charges were recovered was neither ascertained by the Department nor the excisable goods which could have been manufactured from such patterns was worked out or called for from the appellants. Duty cannot be directly demanded on the developmental charges as these are not the excisable goods. Therefore, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Original No. 14/2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum regarding duty demand on patterns/jigs and fixtures, development charges, and penalty imposition.
Duty on Patterns/Jigs and Fixtures: The appellant contended that duty demand on patterns/jigs used within the factory of production is contrary to exemption notifications u/s 46/94-C.E., 56/95-C.E., and 67/95-C.E. The Tribunal agreed, noting duty exemption for goods used within the factory of production. The JDR also conceded that duty on jigs/patterns used for manufacturing is not sustainable. Development Charges: The Commissioner demanded duty on development charges, but the appellant argued that these charges should be levied on the excisable goods manufactured from the patterns. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support the view that duty should be demanded on excisable goods, not directly on development costs. The Department failed to ascertain the number of castings that could be manufactured from the patterns, leading to the conclusion that duty cannot be demanded on developmental charges directly. Penalty Imposition: The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q(i) read with Section 11AC. The appellant argued that Section 11AC is not applicable for goods cleared before 28-9-96. The Tribunal found the penalty imposition unclear and referenced various decisions supporting the appellant's contention. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that duty cannot be demanded on patterns/jigs used within the factory of production and that duty should be levied on excisable goods manufactured from the patterns, not on development charges directly. The unclear penalty imposition was also noted, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.
|